Sad that the only ones with the cajones to say these things are commentators. Where are the “leaders” who can explain why they are right? If the greed-driven neo-cons can do it without the capacity for logic, can’t a reasonable person stand up and shoot them down? Is there a viable public forum for this, or do you have to cave in or sell out just to be heard?
I’d do it, but I’m a socialist/anarchist agnostic. “Not electable,” they say.

If you are one of the die-hard, right-wing Republican religious zealots, then please repeat after me: ” There is no commandment in the Old or New Testament that says that my political party is entitled to have anyone appointed to the federal bench just because the leader of my political party nominates him or her.”

Every time I read an article like this one that equates Republicanism with religious zealotry, I tend to dismiss it as the writings of a political hack. Although there certainly is Republican religious right, the suggestion of this kind of writing is that it would be more acceptable if it was put forth by the Democrats. If this were not so, then why does Nat just not address his criticism to religious zealotry?
There is, of course, a Democratic religious right which is eqaually as zealous and intrusive as the Republicans brand and has a strong presence in my locality. Perhaps Nat is more willing to dismiss this Democratic brand since it enjoys strong support within the African-American community. Nat would do better to improve his credibility by not confusing party affiliation with the root problem - religious zealotry.

[quote author=“Wotansson”]Every time I read an article like this one that equates Republicanism with religious zealotry, I tend to dismiss it as the writings of a political hack. Although there certainly is Republican religious right, the suggestion of this kind of writing is that it would be more acceptable if it was put forth by the Democrats. If this were not so, then why does Nat just not address his criticism to religious zealotry?
There is, of course, a Democratic religious right which is eqaually as zealous and intrusive as the Republicans brand and has a strong presence in my locality. Perhaps Nat is more willing to dismiss this Democratic brand since it enjoys strong support within the African-American community. Nat would do better to improve his credibility by not confusing party affiliation with the root problem - religious zealotry.

That’s a very strange objection, given the article is specifically about the right wing religious reaction to the Democratic senate fillibuster as manifest on “ Justice Sunday ” and such. It’s kind of like accusatorily objecting that only a hack thinks all athletes are on steroids because an investigative journalist wrote an article specifically about athletes on steroids.

What’s up with that?

The very first sentence of the article says “If you are one of the die-hard, right-wing Republican religious zealots . . . ” not “If you are a Republican and therefore one of the die-hard, right-wing Republican religious zealots . . . ” Seems the author dealt with your objection right up front to me.

Byron

Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking as mastery of theory.

“We say, ‘Love your brother.’ We don’t say it really, but… well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either. But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel